On 5/27/15 5:02 AM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
2015-05-27 0:01 GMT+02:00 Martín Marqués <mar...@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:mar...@2ndquadrant.com>>:El 25/05/15 a las 06:13, alex2010 escribió: > Maybe it makes sense to add ability to store large objects in the same table space as the table. > Or an opportunity - to specify table space for a large object. > Do you have anything in todolists about it? This is something which has popped up on me more than once when giving talks about storing files in PostgreSQL (last PgDay Argentina there was quite a debate about it, particularly when bringing up the bytea <-> LO comparison). The concerns the people exposed had different end goals. One of the main concerns was the fact that all LO live in a common catalog table (pg_largeobjects). If the LO were stored per-database, with a some alike schema as pg_largeobjects, then they could be placed on any tablespace available, and even get dumped on a normal DB dump, which makes administration much simpler. I don't get it. They are already stored database per database. Each database has its own pg_largeobjects catalog where all Large Objects for this database are stored.
There's also nothing preventing someone from creating a 'next generation' LO PGXN extension that could be brought into core if enough people show interest. That's probably the best route to get changes to the existing LO infrastructure made.
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
